tv Prime News HLN September 26, 2009 6:00pm-7:00pm EDT
assembly. we have said that we should go the the general assembly. we wear it against the invasion of kuwait. other countries [unintelligible] in the name of the general assembly, with foreign countries. the un charter was expected -- it was inspected, and we stopped the war. no one used the un charter. it was discarded. why? they should investigate. .
one. >> we want for those who have committed the general mass murder against the iraqi people to be tried. make it easier for them to be tried. it is an easy job to make noriega it easier to be tried. what about those who have committed mass murder against iraqi is? they cannot be tried? we should not accept it. either is meant for all of us,
or we should not accept it and refuse it if anyone commits a crime. we're not livestock. we have the right to fight. we're ready to defend ourselves. we have a right to live dignified on the earth. there is the other thing. how come the prisoners of war of barack -- of iraq can be sentenced to death? with iraq was invaded, the president of iraq was made as a prisoner of war. he should not be tried and hanged. at the end of the war, he should be released. we want to know why the prisoner of war should have been tried.
who sentenced to death the president of iraq? is there an answer to that? we know who tried him. the name and identity of the judge, who put on a sacrifice date the rope around his neck and hand the prisoner? the people we do not know. they had amassed over their face. this is a civilized war. these are prisoners of war in a civilized country. the international llamaw -- how could be sentenced to death and hanged? are they a member of the judicial system? do you know what the other people say? they say the american president
are invading the mosques and have already put to death of president of iraq. why did they not uncover their faces? why do we not know their ranks? is he an officer? who is he? how come up president of the country, a member state is sentenced to death and killed? we do not know the identity. the united nations has a duty to answer these questions. who has implemented the death sentence? they should have the legal status and responsibility. we should know their responsibility.
there should be a doctor. there should be all of the legal procedures in place for a layman, let alone the president of a member state in the united nations. that he should be put to death in such a way. this is the iraqi war point number three. it is the of a great situation. that is a disgrace to mankind. -- is the abu ghraib situation. the united nations should not forget it. the general assembly of the united nations should investigate and look into these matters. the prisoners of war were persecuted there.
dogs were used on them. men were made love to. no one has done this before in previous wars. sodomy is unprecedented. in no previous aggressions or with prisoners of wars. there are soldiers that are raped in prisons by members of states of the security council. this is against civilization. this is inhumane. we should know the facts. up until now, 250,000 men and women are still in abu ghraib. they're badly treated, persecuted, rate. we should never forget. we should open an investigation
for that. there's also be an investigation for the afghan war. why are we against the taliban. if the taliban wants to -- it is a religious country. it is peaceful. if the taliban was to make an islamic emirates, who said the taliban is the enemy? he is not the taliban. he is not afghan. they are neither afghan nor taliban. then why iraq? why afghanistan?
i would encourage the americans and britons to send more troops in this bloodbath, but they will never come to a fruitful results in a rock or afghanistan. look at what happened to them in iraq, even though it is the desert. afghanistan is a mountainous area. if i wanted to deceive them, and would tell them to carry on the war in iraq and afghanistan. i want to save the people of the united states and britain and other countries that are fighting. leave afghanistan to the afghans. leave iraq to the iraqis.
let them fight if they want to. nobody interfered in the civil wars of america. there was a civil war in spain, china, everywhere. let there be a civil war in iraq. if they want to have that and fight each other, fair enough. who says of the taliban come in government they would have a nuclear weapon? the airplanes hit new york. did the airplane takeoff from afghanistan or iraq? these airplanes were at jfk airport. how can we go and hit afghanistan? they are not afghan. they are not taliban. they are not the rockieiraqis.
can we keep quiet? anyone who does not speak the truth is a silent devil. we are committed to world peace and security. we want to save mankind and humanity. the general assembly should also opened investigations into the file of assassinations. we just want to record it in our african history. we want to know how an african liberator and leader was killed and assassinated. who killed him?
he was assassinated and killed. we want to know the facts of that. even after 50 years, it should be reopened again. who killed the second general? who bombed the airplane of the inspector general in 1961? how come the other plane the secretary of general united nations airplane was bombed? then there was the assassination and killing of kennedy in 1963 or 1962. why? we want to know who killed him. somebody by the name of lee harvey. then someone else killed lee harvey. why did he kill him?
jack ruby, and is really, killed lee harvey who killed kennedy. why did and is really kill the killers of kennedy? -- why did an isreaaeli kill the killer of kennedy? we should open the file. the whole world should know. kennedy wanted to investigate the nuclear reactor of israel. it has to do with the security council and the peace and security of the world. we should open this file wide. then there is the killing of martin luther king. this black reverend who was a human rights activists was
killed. we should know who killed him and why. then there is the palestinian. he was in tunisia living peacefully there. the independence of this country was not respected. we cannot keep quiet. even though submarines and ships came along the shores of tunisia, was killed there. no one is blamed. no one is judged for that. someone else was also killed. we should know how he was killed. in one operation, palestinians were killed in a country as a
sovereign member state of the security council. in lebanon, they were sleeping peacefully. they were attacked. we should know who killed them. these violations of mankind should not be repeated. we have already talked about the invasion of grenada and how many ships were used. 7015 warships and hundreds of bombers -- tens of bombers. the president was killed even though it was a member. these are crimes.
we cannot keep silent. otherwise, we will be like sacrifices. we are not animals. year after year, we are attacked. we defend ourselves and our children. we are not afraid. we have the right to live. the rights are meant for all of us. we cannot live humiliated on this earth. no. so, we have the wars. then there are the massacres were 3000 people were killed and massacred. this area was under the israeli protection, occupying israeli army. there was a serious bid massacre there with men, women,
and children killed. 3000 were massacred and killed. how can we keep quiet? women lebanon is a member of the general assembly. the massacre took place. in 2008, there was the massacre of gaza. 200 children were victims. 3200 between children and women were killed and massacred. that was in the massacre in gaza in the year of 2008. 50 associations related to the nation's were destroyed.
another 50 organizations were also destroyed. 50 clinics were destroyed. 40 doctors and nurses were killed. that was while they were exercising their humane activities. this was done in 2010. the commanitters are still alive and should be tried. should we only take a week or the underdog? we should -- the big and protected people are not to be tried if they are under international law. they should face trial and the consequence of a crime that they committed. otherwise, we should never accept the rules of the icc. the orders of the icc are not
respected or implemented. the general assembly is nothing. it is only meant for certain members and organizations, what is the united nations? it means the united nations is insignificant. i receive may be a phenomenon on the high seas. -- piracy may be a phenomenon on the high seas. somalis are not pirates. we are the parts. we went there. we took their fish and wealth. -- we are the pirates. all of us. we are all pyriirates.
went into the waters of somalia. the somalis are protecting their own fish and substance of food. they have become pirates because they are defending the food of their children. we want to address this matter. should we send warships? we will send warships to the pirates to have attacked the food of the children. i have seen the pirates. i told them i would make a convincing agreement between them and the world that the whole world with respect their economic zone that is 200 miles, according to international law. all of the marine life should be protected. it belongs to all of the somali
people. they should stop disposing of poisonous waste along the shores. in return, the somalis will not attack the ships anymore. we should propose and draft this international treaty. the solution does not lie in sending more military ships to fight the somalis. this is not the solution. our dressing of the piracy is wrong. our addressing of that terror is wrong. the swine flu, perhaps we will have the fish flu. perhaps we will lose control over them. it is business. they make the virus so that the capitalist countries will have
the vaccinations. they want to sell it. this is a shame. it is bad ethics. the vaccination should not be sold. read the green book. medicine should not be sold. medicines should not be sold. it should not be a commission business. you should make a recommendation that medicines should be free of charge. vaccination's should be given free to children. capitalist countries make the virus and the vaccinations. they want to make a profit. why not make it free of charge? why do we not give it for free? we should give it for free. we should not sell it. the whole world should make an effort to create and manufacture excavation-- vaccind
not make a profit. all of these items are put in the agenda of the general assembly. the general assembly has not executed the agreement. it creates the -- this is wrong. mines are a defensive weapon. i put along the border of my country. if you want to invade me, you may be killed. that is okay. you are invading me. you are coming to me. there is a website for gadhafi talks. you can read it. this treaty should be modified.
i want to create mines for defense against my home, against the invasion. >> the solution is an arab democratic state without religious fanaticism. this generation is over. we need a new generation in which everyone lives in peace. they all want peace. they want to live under one state. this conflict poisons the world. this white book actually has the solution. i will give it to you.
it is the solution did arabs have no hostility nor animosity towards israel. -- is the solution. arabs have no hostility more animosity towards israel. we want to live in peace. you are the ones that brought upon them the holocaust. you are the ones that burn them. not us. we gave them refuge. we gave them safe haven during the romans and during evolution. you are the ones to poison them and annihilated them. -- we provided them with protection. we are not high style. we're not enemies of the jews. -- we are not hostile. at some point, the jews need arabs. we will be the ones to save them. look at what everybody else did to the jews.
hiltetler is an example. you are the ones that hate the jews, not us. kashmir should be an independent state. we should end the conflict. it should be a buffer state between india and pakistan. i really hope that the assistance provided by international organizations would become development projects for agriculture, for irrigation. you are the ones that made it a crisis. you have put it on the altar. you have wanted to sacrifice darfur. you have turned the problem into the united nations'.
you just want to settle scores with syria. lebanon is an independent state. it has laws, courts, judiciary, it has police. we're not after the perpetrators at that point. what they really wanted was to settle scores with syria. the assassinations could have been turned into the united nations as well. the general assembly is now under the presidency of libya. this is our right. libya hopes that he would assist the world -- libya hopes that you would assist the world to move from one stage to another, from a world that is scattered
and fraught with crises and tension to a world in which humanity prevails and in which tolerance prevails. i will personally follow up on this issue with the general assembly, with the secretary general. it is not part of our courtesies or habits to compromise when it has to do with the destiny of humanity. the struggle of the third world, the struggle of small nations should live in peace until the end. god's peace be upon you. i think my brother, the leader of the revolution, and the chair person of the african union for his statement. >> tomorrow, the republican strategist and a democratic strategist will discuss the political news of the week, health care debate, and the war
in afghanistan. rubin talks about the need for more troops in afghanistan. the university of maryland economics professor discusses the state of the u.s. economy and the g-20 meeting in pittsburgh. "washington journal" is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> supreme court week is just a week away. it features personal interviews with each of the currently serving and retired supreme court justices. get an insider's view of the people and places that make up the nation's highest court. >> why is it that we have an elegant, astonishingly beautiful, imposing, impressive structure? it is to remind us that we have an important function. it is to remind the public of the importance and the centrality of the law. >> "supreme court week" starts
on sunday. to complement our original production, c-span offers teachers free resources on the judicial system. >> this week, two perspectives on recently announced proposals by the sec chairman that would affect international that travels over the internet. chris mccabe and ben scott our interview. >> this week, the chairman of the federal communications commission announced network neutrality. here is a little bit from the german. >>
>> the fifth principle is one of non-discrimination. broadband providers cannot discriminate against particular applications. they cannot block ordered agreed -- they cannot walk or degrade more thacan they disfavr the. to give service. the internet must continue to allow users to decide what content and what applications succeed. this principle will not prevent broadband providers from reasonably managing their networks. during times of congestion, it may be important to make sure that certain providers do not crowd out everyone else. this is vital that illegal conduct be curtailed on the internet. open internet principles apply only to lawful content services
and applications, not to activities like unlawful distribution of copyrighted works, that have serious economic consequences. the obligations of network openness must exist. i will propose that the fcc evaluate violations of the case by case basis, recognizing that the internet is a complex and dynamic system. this approach will allow the commission to make reasoned, fact-based determinations based on the internet before it, not based on the internet of years past or on how the internet may evolve. the sixth principle is a transparency principle. it stays that providers of internet access must be transparent about their network management practices. why does the fcc need to adopt this principle? the internet evolved over open principles. the contest would be free and available to all. the new management technology
challenges this understanding. today, broadband providers have the ability to change how the internet works for millions of users with profound consequences for users around the world. >> chris gutman-mccabe, what is your reaction? >> our concern would be that memorializing a set of rules at this time could have a significant impact in our space on both investment and innovation. if you were to look back 18 months ago, the hottest hands that was a razor. there was no such thing as an application store. there were no 4-g networks.
the iphone was just being launched. in this 18 months, you have seen an explosion of innovation. you have seen google launch two different phones. but barry has launched fou -- blackberry has launched four phones. gone to hundreds of applications available on wireless devices. in 18 months, the entire ecosystem has now changed. it was once carrier focused. we now have manufacturers, infrastructure vendors, with operating system providers. we now have these applications stores. memorializing a set of rules now in such a fast-moving space is cause for concern. we're concerned about how they would impact innovation and investment. >> how would a policy of network neutrality impact investment and
innovation? >> i can give you one example. the 700 mhz auction ended one year ago. the revived licenses that were put up. -- there were five licenses that were put up. four of them were successfully auctioned off. two of them sold to one company. it sold for a little bit over $4 billion. the block right next to it was half the size and sold in over 700 pieces sold for more than $9 billion. the c block with net of neutrality was twice as big and sold for half as much. that gives an illustration in the spectrum context of the risk and uncertainty that is
entailed for someone who has to move their services into that environment. >> cheryl bolen? >> you have said before the you're concerned about unintended consequences? specifically, what is the worst that could happen? >> i look at where we are now and where we could be. i compared the u.s. wireless industry to just about any other wireless industry on the planet. in our space, the hottest hand sets are all launched in the united states first. we have the largest number of subscribers on high-speed networks on the planet. we of the least concentrated wireless network on the planet. we have the most number of providers. that is whether you look city to city or the nation as a whole, we have the lowest price per minute, the highest minutes used, the most broad and usage.
i look at that equation and look at what could go wrong. the industry is not perfect. but there has been an evolution in the technology space. in the last 18 months, we've seen carriers offering free trial period, terminating fees, allowing people to change elements of the contract without extending it. to me, there is nothing going wrong in this space. there is a lot that is going right right now. when you look at how the proposed rules had been memorialized 18 months ago, think of what they would have missed. think about the start changes in the last 18 months. i would argue we will see those kinds of changes in the next 18 months. >> net neutrality regulations would have stopped a lot of this innovation? >> i do not think we know that for sure.
i am happy to say that when i listened to the chairman and some of his staff, it is a brilliant group of people. they understand the differentiation between the different platforms. this is evolving so quickly. a number of these things have not been carrier-specific. we are seeing a real evolution in our space. that does not bring into play applications or devices like the amazon cankindle or net books. there has to be a lot of treading lightly on behalf of the commission and the policy makers. >> what about the broadband rollout and investment in broadband question and do you
think it could affect that also? >> i would not be doing my job if i did not explain how much investment has occurred to date. if you look at the last three years, i do not think anyone would argue they've been the easiest three years from an economic perspective. our industry has put $100 billion into the economy in the last three years just in infrastructure and capital investment. that does not include salaries or benefits. when you add those into the equation, you're talking about $140 billion. i challenge someone to find another industry that has done so much. we look at this as a virtuous cycle. you need the networks to be upgraded so that even have the smarter handsets and the new applications. consumers then by did handsets with the new applications and push the carriers to invest. in 10 years, we've gone from analog, digital, the third generation. we're now on the cusp of the
fourth generation networks. we're talking about hundreds of billions of dollars over the next couple of years. i think that we should be facilitating that collectively. i know that is the goal. i want to make sure that what happens when these policies are debated is that there is an understanding that there is a risk in putting some of that investment that harm. >> were you surprised by the announcement? >> not surprised, obviously concerned. surprised that it came while we were debating a number of other issues in the wireless space like innovation and competition. for us, we look at it as an opportunity to educate policymakers. the chairman, other commissioners, people on capitol hill, and in the states. to us, it is an opportunity. >> one of the concerns of the sec is to apply the regulations
evenly across all broadband providers. -- one of the concerns of the fcc is to apply the regulations evenly across all broadband providers. >> let me give you an example of why we are different. on our devices, that device provides both voice and data service. at times, it is simultaneously. it is at least on the same elements of the platform. a heavy user impacts our voice calls. that would be part one. part two is our service is mobil nature. our carriers are constantly trying to recognize and identify, and respond to peaks in demand that airmobile in nature. it is not just traffic in and out of the city. it is also whether people converge on a site for a meeting. when you look at the mobile old, is different from the landslidle
providers. we cannot build out. we're limited by the amount that the government assigns to us. when you look at those three, it does make us different. i know that the commission knows and understands that. our job is to explain and put some hard facts to that. one i would throw out for the listeners is a youtube down load on the mobile device uses 100 times the bandwidth of a voice call. that is something that we will have to learn to manage that kind of broadbent traffic. >> the wireless industry already has different price points. if you have a wired connection abroad and at home, you pay one price per month. you already have a price point where if you use this much time, you pay that much, etc.
>> you raise a good point. i chuckle a little bit. we get the net at times for having too many offerings. then we get beat up on the other side equation because people say we have the opposite. we have seen a lot in the consumer space. think about how high power bills were 10 years ago. they're close to $100. you paid for every minute that you used. and that 10 years, we've gone the calling plans, buckets, nights and weekends, family plans, favorites, networks, rollover minutes, pre-paid, post-paid, all of the above. we've seen the concept evolved to text messaging. we're seeing those prices change and come down and the ball. we're now seeing it in data. cricket just entered the d.c. market.
they of fivhave a five gig cap. they had just offered attena teg cap. we're seeing that change. >> are these capacity limitations temporary? >> i wish that was the case. i am a lawyer by trade. i have tried to put that aside. i do not think that is the case. you can look at it in the wireless space or the wired space or your typical computer usage. for every additional benefit that is gained, someone intelligent out in america is finding a way to use it. we submitted a paper to the fcc that talk about broadband demand. it talked about an impending perfect storm of broadband usage
between consumer uptake, better devices, more optimization of websites, explosion of applications. when you look at all that come every efficiency that is driven out of the third to fourth generation, i believe will be captured very quickly by the innovation of the handset makers and the applications providers. that is why we have pushed strongly for the federal government to focus on getting more spectrum into the market. >> do you think there might be a consumer backlash if they were able to go home and get services and applications on their pc but find they could not get them on their wireless device? >> i would argue that they are different. the wired device is not mobile. you cannot walk outside your home. they are different. if consumers want something,
this industry has a track record of providing it. you look at the fact, even in d.c., we just learned this the other day. in the district, there 6 facility space providers of wireless services. you can get wireless service from 15 companies in d.c. i found that amazing. i asked the folks in our status department to track the other nine largest cities. then i asked them to track the 10 smallest. i was stunned to find that in the largest cities, not one has less than 15 providers. not one has less than six facilities based providers. we look at the small ones to see how big the discrepancy was. eight of the 10 smallest cities have five facility bases. the other two have three. their numbers do not go up to 15, but they have a number of nvos or resellers providing there.
if it is a product that consumers want, someone in our space will provide it. it may be one of the largest or one of the other companies that come in like cricket or metro the provided disruptive force to market. >> on your policy agenda, where do you rank this issue of net neutrality management? what kind of reception do you think the chairman will get in october at your annual convention? >> i would argue that these are the top three in terms of our need to educate the commission. i think the chairman will get a fantastic reception. we are happy to see them talking about having a fact-based and fact-driven fcc. he has talked about it quite a bit. he is a sharp guy. this is an industry that wants to innovate and to evolve and invest. that is what he wants.
i think he will get a great reception. i hope he will. i think he will. that will be from our board members and the audience at the show. >> next, we are going to talk with dennis scott of the free press organization. -- we are going to talk with ben scott of the free press organization. >> what did the announcement mean for you? >> it means that consumers are about to get what candidate obama promised during the election, a free and open internet guaranteed by law, executed by the chairman of the federal communications commission. it is a big moment. it is the end of years long debate over what the future of internet looks like. from my perspective, it is a great moment as a consumer advocate. the consumers will win out if
the chairman is successful if he achieves what he set out in the speech. it is no secret to anybody who has ever gone on line that the internet is a magical free- market for speech and commerce. it is the greatest engine of innovation since the printing press. we want to keep it that way. we want the market to be open. we want the plain field to the level. we want the choice is to be made by consumers and not the network operators that sells the service. network neutrality codifies those principles into the law. it says that if we go over the loss, we will correct and moved back to that model. it has worked for us brilliantly for years. we're going to carry on with it. you heard chris say that he is worried that if such a policy were enacted, investment in telecommunications, particularly wireless would fall dramatically.
i have certainly heard these arguments many times. this is a common refrain. anytime the industry is faced with the regulation they do not like, they say will hurt investment and we will not be able to deliver products and services. as soon as they lose the fis and the rate -- as soon as they lose the fight, we move on. washington has chronic amnesia. nobody remembers the last time around. we do not exercise the skepticism that we ought to. the truth is that the relationship between investment and innovation is not cause and effect. regulation only depresses or increases investment in so far as it increases or decreases competition. for me, and that neutrality is the ultimate policy. there is no reason to believe
this will send negative signals to wall street. >> you have heard carriers say that the instances of blocking our pare rare and that is not a problem. >> to me, that is missing the forest for the trees. it is true that there have been a small number of instances in which carriers violated net neutrality up to this point. that is a good thing. they've only violated it on a couple of occasions because regulators and consumers are breathing down their necks about what the future of the internet should look like. they're arguing they would never do that. but they're saying that they have to do that to get the investment to build up the networks. you cannot have it both ways. either you would never do it and it does not matter or you have to do it to get a return on
investment. as soon as we set aside the rhetoric and get to looking at policy, i think those kinds of arguments will distract from the real issue. >> another argument that mr. gutman-mccabe made is that one reason for these rules now is that there is limited competition in the industry and get the wireless industry is very competitive. should wireless be exempted? >> in no way should wireless be exempted. toronto and commissions -- throughout telecommunications history, we've had problems with policy. today we have a policy and legal framework around cable television, wireless, telephone networks. this is all being disrupted by the internet. the internet offers all of these services. how do we handle that? we do not want to repeat the mistake of past.
that is to take one of them and put it off the side. that sort of exceptional was some creates problems. it denies what we christine -- that sort of exceptionalism creates problems. it denies what we are seeing every day. there is no such thing as a wireless or wired internet. there is just the internet. we cannot have policies designed to foster an open market of competition with speech and commerce on the internet if we have exempted wireless from the picture when wireless is a very common means for people getting access to the internet. it just does not make any sense. >> would it be fair to apply net neutrality regulations to the carriers who just spent billions on the 700 mhz spectrum knowing that these types of regulations would not apply to them? >> they have a good talking point. they do not have a lot of legal
argument there. let's be clear. they did not by a deed to the public sector. they bought a license. the public controls that. it is the public airwaves they are using to transmit their signals. fcc has every right to go out and say that the license conditions need to change because it is in the public interest. we are clarifying it now. imagine we were talking about a public safety issue. there may be a company that bought access to federal land to build a building or drill an oil well. we changed the safety regulations. they bought the license not knowing there would be a change in the safety regulations. but we need to have better safety. no one is arguing over the outcome. it is the same outcome here. i do not think that is going to hold water in the end.
>> is it fair to compare public safety with a commercial enterprise? the example is apt. increasingly, the internet is no longer a commercial service. it is an infrastructure. i say that because it sounds somewhat quixotic. if you look at what the government did with the recovery act with $700 billion in spending, not only did they put that money directly into grants for broadband infrastructure. the layered on top billions of dollars a programs in smart grid, a technology and education. all of those programs assume a robust broadband infrastructure if that is reasonably comparable in quality and price across the country. that is infrastructure policy. what we are witnessing at the fcc is the logical next step.
we're going to create a regulatory framework for the internet. it recognizes it is an infrastructure now and not just a commercial service. >> what kind of regulatory framework do you foresee for the internet? >> i think it will be a very light overarching frame that says we want to make sure the market is open, competitive, the consumers are in control of their internet experience to the greatest extent possible. we want to make sure it is affordable and delivered to every household in the country, not just those in urban areas or high income neighborhoods. there will be a regulatory framework. it is a myth that we will have a deregulated market. and infrastructure is going to be regulated one way or the other. it is just about what kind of regulations we will have into it will serve. the principals will be openness,
competition, deployment, capacity, and affordability. that is something that the vast majority of the public can get behind. but we have heard from the wireless industry that this ne t neutrality proposal is priority number one, two, and three for the industry. >> i am glad to hear that they're paying attention. i hope they will resolve this issue in a productive way so that the industry can move forward with good public policy behind it. i think that you are witnessing something. people are taking positions, posturing, playing politics. we are at the beginning of a process where everyone knows that we will end with some kind of rule preventing network operators from discriminating on the internet. they're trying to position themselves to leverage themselves in the ultimate negotiation. i think you will see those hyperbolic statements lot in the coming weeks.
>> can i ask about the authority of the commission? the commission has argued that they are have the authority to prevent these behaviors. why is it important to have rules? >> i think the chairman is proceeding on the path that is a logical extension of things the commission has done for years. if you look back of the debate over the last several years, you will see that the commission intervened when comcast was blocking a popular internet application. yet seen the commerce apply an openness condition of the broadband infrastructure grants out of the stimulus act. you have seen the commission pursue policies of openness in the wireless spectrum. he is institutionalizing this principle in a way it has not been in the past. right now, we have a policy statement. the policy statement is
guidelines for the industry that is enforceable on the underlying statute of the communications act. he is saying that we will clarify that. we will put rules on the books so that this policy is institutionalized going forward and so that there is certainty in the marketplace as to what is expected. >> there are already rumblings in congress about introducing legislation to counteract any proposal or policy that the fcc comes down with. >> as i read the news cycle, there was an immediate reaction in the senate after the speech by the chairman on monday. several legislators, republican senators, introduced the limitation amendment. it simply says that anything the fcc is about to do, we will not give them any money to do it. this is just another stunt and peace of hyperbole to create a political environment in which positions are entrenched and
negotiations can proceed from there. i think it is a bit too much to say that we will prevent you from doing the thing you have not done yet the just announced the you going to start a process to do. come on now. we have to let people do their jobs. >> do you foresee court cases? >> virtually every major decision that the fcc makes is taken to court by someone. it seems very likely that if they pass a rule in the spring, someone will take it to court. i think the quality of the process, the history behind the issue, and the deliberative fact-based evaluation of the commission before they vote will be the judge of whether it holds up. i am confident this is not something that will be thrown out by the courts. >> in 2005, the commission declared